Tag Archive: Congressional Approval

” Like many other auditors, Howie Carr of The Boston Herald was perplexed after he listened to Barack Obama’s televised address on Wednesday night. He cannot understand, any more than can you or I, how the President can deny that ISIS — the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria — is Islamic. He could have added that it was also rather odd that the President of the United States denied that ISIS is a state. “What,” we might ask, “does a state do that ISIS does not now do?” And Carr was no less nonplussed when Secretary of State John Kerry denied that we were going to war against ISIS, resorted to euphemism, and asserted that what we are about to become engaged in is “a very important counter-terrorism operation.”

“Does that,” Carr asks, “make it … a police action? Will we have to destroy the village in order to save it?”

It’s all very confusing. When George W. Bush considered invading Iraq without a declaration of war, the Democrats wanted to try him for war crimes in The Hague. When Obama does the same thing … crickets.

Which raises another question: Where exactly is the anti-war movement?

Have you see a single “No Blood for Oil” sign in Cambridge?

To paraphrase the John Kerry of 2004: “Can I get me a candlelight vigil here?”

Whatever happened to Cindy Sheehan? Where is Code Pink? I haven’t seen an “EndLESS War” bumper sticker in years, since 2009 to be exact.

The anti-war movement is MIA as this war, er, counter­terrorism operation, begins. Back when Bush was waging war, dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Now it’s “racism.” If you speak truth to power in the Obama era, they call it hate speech. The IRS will audit you.

Obama’s media sycophants described his prime-time speech as “nuanced.” I’d call it ragtime.

I thought the moonbats didn’t want the U.S. “going it alone.” You hear that phrase on the networks now about as often as you hear the words “full employment.”

And why is the president so outraged about a couple of beheadings? When a Muslim terrorist yelling “Allahu akbar!” murdered 13 servicemen at Fort Hood, Obama shrugged it off as “workplace violence.”

” The public’s approval rating for Congress has finally hit rock bottom: For the first time, America has a higher opinion of car salespeople.

A new Economist/YouGov.com poll put the approval rating of Congress at a historic low of 6 percent. A December 2012 Gallup poll comparing Congress’ approval ratings to other occupations had car salespeople at the bottom at 8 percent and Congress at 10 percent. Now Congress is the cellar dweller.

After dealing with car salesmen you do end up with something in your possession after having spent your money . What do you get when Congress spends your money ? The same pack of lies as the salesmen , the same empty pockets , but nothing at all that you can claim as your own . In fact once the politician has taken your money they are liable to be putting that car your money paid for in someone else’s driveway .

” Today, 13 November 2013, WikiLeaks released the secret negotiated draft text for the entire TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) Intellectual Property Rights Chapter. The TPP is the largest-ever economic treaty, encompassing nations representing more than 40 per cent of the world’s GDP. The WikiLeaks release of the text comes ahead of the decisive TPP Chief Negotiators summit in Salt Lake City, Utah, on 19-24 November 2013. The chapter published by WikiLeaks is perhaps the most controversial chapter of the TPP due to its wide-ranging effects on medicines, publishers, internet services, civil liberties and biological patents. Significantly, the released text includes the negotiation positions and disagreements between all 12 prospective member states.

The TPP is the forerunner to the equally secret US-EU pact TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), for which President Obama initiated US-EU negotiations in January 2013. Together, the TPP and TTIP will cover more than 60 per cent of global GDP. Both pacts exclude China.

Since the beginning of the TPP negotiations, the process of drafting and negotiating the treaty’s chapters has been shrouded in an unprecedented level of secrecy. Access to drafts of the TPP chapters is shielded from the general public. Members of the US Congress are only able to view selected portions of treaty-related documents in highly restrictive conditions and under strict supervision. It has been previously revealed that only three individuals in each TPP nation have access to the full text of the agreement, while 600 ’trade advisers’ – lobbyists guarding the interests of large US corporations such as Chevron, Halliburton, Monsanto and Walmart – are granted privileged access to crucial sections of the treaty text.

The TPP negotiations are currently at a critical stage. The Obama administration is preparing to fast-track the TPP treaty in a manner that will prevent the US Congress from discussing or amending any parts of the treaty. Numerous TPP heads of state and senior government figures, including President Obama, have declared their intention to sign and ratify the TPP before the end of 2013.”

This has NWO/Statism written all over it . The fact that Obama is trying to skirt the necessary Congressional approval of trade agreements says all we need to know about his administration’s efforts “on our behalf” . It would appear after a very brief , cursory reading that many of the provisions in the latest piece of sovereign renunciation are blatantly unconstitutional , which helps to explain the imperative of secrecy and subterfuge from our “most open , honest and transparent” administration .

This whole treaty , conceived in the smoke-filled back rooms of some old boys network private club , far from the prying eyes of the peons people and their representatives by the Masters of Industry and State is nothing more than a two-fisted power grab enriching the global corporate entity and the transnationalist political figures they bankroll .

” The 95-page, 30,000-word IP Chapter lays out provisions for instituting a far-reaching, transnational legal and enforcement regime, modifying or replacing existing laws in TPP member states. The Chapter’s subsections include agreements relating to patents (who may produce goods or drugs), copyright (who may transmit information), trademarks (who may describe information or goods as authentic) and industrial design.

The longest section of the Chapter – ’Enforcement’ – is devoted to detailing new policing measures, with far-reaching implications for individual rights, civil liberties, publishers, internet service providers and internet privacy, as well as for the creative, intellectual, biological and environmental commons. Particular measures proposed include supranational litigation tribunalsto which sovereign national courts are expected to defer, but which have no human rights safeguards. The TPP IP Chapter states that these courts can conduct hearings with secret evidence. The IP Chapter also replicates many of the surveillance and enforcement provisions from the shelved SOPA and ACTA treaties.”

In order for Obama to skirt the Constitutional requirement of senatorial “advise & consent” the proposed TPP and TTIP have to be Executive Agreements and not , strictly speaking , treaties . This ploy allows him to avoid the necessary 2/3 vote of approval from the full Senate . Executive agreements have a long and controversial history in the hands of US presidents .

Having been unfamiliar with the distinction between the agreement and treaty we thought we would educate ourselves a bit and pass along our research for the benefit of readers such as ourselves . Here is how the Oxford Companion To The Supreme Court describes the differences between the two types of agreements :

” Under the Constitution, treaties with other countries require consent of two‐thirds of the Senate. The framers clearly intended joint action of the national executive and the representatives of states in Congress to make binding international obligations.

Executive agreements, unmentioned in the text, are practical alternatives made under presidential authority. They are so ubiquitous in American foreign relations—and sometimes so controversial—that one should distinguish various forms. The vast bulk have some form of legislative approval by statute, treaty, or joint resolution of Congress. For example, the North American and general trade agreements of 1993–1994 were approved by joint resolution. If the subject is within Congress’s broad powers, the Supreme Court accepts the delegation of legislative power and the Senate bypass. “

Franklin Roosevelt , Obama’s presidential idol , was the undisputed master of usurpation through the use of executive agreements , which coming from the man who’s very reign inspired the need for presidential term limits , who attempted to change the very nature of the Supreme Court and who issued orders for nationwide gold confiscation should come as no surprise .

” President Franklin D. “Roosevelt converted executive agreements into primary instruments of foreign relations. He approved the Litvinov Agreement recognizing the Soviet Union in 1933, and the destroyer bases deal of 1940. During World War II, Roosevelt and Truman made secret agreements with allies at Cairo, Yalta, and Potsdam affecting most of the world.”

” … presidents have had the power to enter into executive agreements with other nations since George Washington’s administration. Treaties are binding on future presidents unless modified with Senate consent; executive agreements are not.

As explained in greater detail in 11 FAM 721.2, there are two procedures under domestic law through which the United States becomes a party to an international agreement. First, international agreements (regardless of their title, designation, or form) whose entry into force with respect to the United States takes place only after two thirds of the U.S. Senate has given its advice and consent under Article II, section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution are “treaties.” Second, international agreements brought into force with respect to the United States on a constitutional basis other than with the advice and consent of the Senate are “international agreements other than treaties” and are often referred to as “executive agreements.”

Let’s look, then, at 11 FAM 721.2 to see on what “constitutional basis” a president might enter into such an agreement.

(3) Agreements Pursuant to the Constitutional Authority of the President

The President may conclude an international agreement on any subject within his constitutional authority so long as the agreement is not inconsistent with legislation enacted by the Congress in the exercise of its constitutional authority. The constitutional sources of authority for the President to conclude international agreements include:

(a) The President’s authority as Chief Executive to represent the nation in foreign affairs;

(b) The President’s authority to receive ambassadors and other public ministers;

(c) The President’s authority as “Commander-in-Chief”; and

(d) The President’s authority to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” “

” The capacity of the United States to enter into agreements with other nations is not exhausted in the treaty-making power. The Constitution recognizes a distinction between ”treaties” and ”agreements” or ”compacts” but does not indicate what the difference is. 388 The differences, which once may have been clearer, have been seriously blurred in practice within recent decades. Once a stepchild in the family in which treaties were the preferred offspring, the executive agreement has surpassed in number and perhaps in international influence the treaty formally signed, submitted for ratification to the Senate, and proclaimed upon ratification.

During the first half-century of its independence, the United States was party to sixty treaties but to only twenty-seven published executive agreements. By the beginning of World War II, there had been concluded approximately 800 treaties and 1,200 executive agreements. In the period 1940-1989, the Nation entered into 759 treaties and into 13,016 published executive agreements. Cumulatively, in 1989, the United states was a party to 890 treaties and 5,117 executive agreements. To phrase it comparatively, in the first 50 years of its history, the United States concluded twice as many treaties as executive agreements. In the 50-year period from 1839 to 1889, a few more executive agreements than treaties were entered into. From 1889 to 1939, almost twice as many executive agreements as treaties were concluded. In the period since 1939, executive agreements have comprised more than 90% of the international agreements concluded. 389“

In the interests of “equal time” , sort of , you can view TPP “news” , what little there is at the Office of The US Trade Representative’s website . Good luck with that .

In closing , and admittedly not knowing as much as we should about this looming shadow of globalism , we are of the opinion that any agreement or treaty related to business and commerce promulgated by the most economically illiterate leader this country has ever had can only be intended to accomplish one , the other or both of two things … most likely both : 1) further pad the already bloated bank accounts of his corporate cronies through regulation and protectionism and 2) advance the Statist/NWO agenda that drives his trans-nationalist puppet masters through gaining control of the creative process … meaning control of the lines of communication ( internet freedom) and control of property rights (patents , trade marks , etc).

There is surely nothing in this secretive effort that can be described as advancing the cause of the individual and human rights and that is not acceptable from any US president .

That’s the message 60 percent of Americans are sending to Washington in a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, saying if they had the chance to vote to defeat and replace every single member of Congress, including their own representative, they would. Just 35 percent say they would not.

According to the latest NBC/WSJ poll, the shutdown has been a political disaster. One in three say the shutdown has directly impacted their lives, and 65 percent say the shutdown is doing quite a bit of harm to the economy. NBC’s Chuck Todd reports.

“We continue to use this number as a way to sort of understand how much revulsion there is,” said Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted the poll with Republican Bill McInturff. “We now have a new high-water mark.” “

” Declaring that “our country has changed in the past 50 years,” Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s four other conservatives said the 1965 law cannot be enforced unless Congress updates it to account for a half-century of civil rights advances.

The court’s 5-4 ruling in the case from Alabama frees states and municipalities with a history of racial discrimination from having to clear changes in voting procedures with the federal government. That restriction has applied to nine states and parts of six others, mostly in the South.

“Coverage today is based on decades-old data and eradicated practices,” Roberts said. “Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions,” he wrote. “